Lord Jim is one of those great works of fiction that is best watched after having read the novel, or at least a solid summary of the book. Without this background, the movie could be hard to understand. I also found that it was helpful to watch the film twice. Since some of the details of the movie do not square with those of the novel, it was a bit confusing at times to follow the sequence of the movie, and a second viewing brought all of that into focus. In my opinion, the motion picture does capture quite well the spirit of the book, if not the absolute letter.
I actually found Peter O'Toole's depiction of the lead character to be a quite good representation. He is just as naive and disoriented a character in the movie as in the book. His heroics in the movie are appropriately tempered with self-doubt, and his ultimate fate squares with the novelist's intent for his hero/anti-hero.
I enjoy watching movies of this kind to see how a director and actors visualize the plot of their respective novels, and to me Lord Jim was not a disappointment.
I actually found Peter O'Toole's depiction of the lead character to be a quite good representation. He is just as naive and disoriented a character in the movie as in the book. His heroics in the movie are appropriately tempered with self-doubt, and his ultimate fate squares with the novelist's intent for his hero/anti-hero.
I enjoy watching movies of this kind to see how a director and actors visualize the plot of their respective novels, and to me Lord Jim was not a disappointment.